work of any particular system, as the deliberations of that particular system are expressed in such close interconnection with the views of other systems that these can hardly be understood without them. Each system of India has grown (at least in particular epochs) in relation to and in opposition to the growth of other systems of thought, and to be a thorough student of Indian philosophy one should study all the systems in their mutual opposition and relation from the earliest times to a period at which they ceased to grow and came to a stop-a purpose for which a work like the present one may only be regarded as forming a preliminary introduction.

Besides the sūtras and their commentaries there are also independent treatises on the systems in verse called kārikās, which try to summarize the important topics of any system in a succinct manner; the Sāmkhya kārikā may be mentioned as a work of this kind. In addition to these there were also long dissertations, commentaries, or general observations on any system written in verses called the vārttikas; the Ślokavārttika, of Kumārila or the Värttika of Sureśvara may be mentioned as examples. All these of course had their commentaries to explain them. In addition to these there were also advanced treatises on the systems in prose in which the writers either nominally followed some selected sūtras or proceeded independently of them. Of the former class the Nyāyamañjarī of Jayanta may be mentioned as an example and of the latter the Prasastapāda bhāṣya, the Advaitasiddhi of Madhusudana Sarasvati or the Vedanta-paribhāṣā of Dharmarājādhvarindra. The more remarkable of these treatises were of a masterly nature in which the writers represented the systems they adhered to in a highly forcible and logical manner by dint of their own great mental powers and genius. These also had their commentaries to explain and elaborate them. The period of the growth of the philosophic literatures of India begins from about 500 B.C. (about the time of the Buddha) and practically ends in the later half of the seventeenth century, though even now some minor publications are seen to come out.

The Indian Systems of Philosophy.

The Hindus classify the systems of philosophy into two classes, namely, the nastika and the āstika. The nāstika (na asti "it is not") views are those which neither regard the Vedas as infallible

nor try to establish their own validity on their authority. These are principally three in number, the Buddhist, Jaina and the Cārvāka. The astika-mata or orthodox schools are six in number, Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Mīmāmsā, Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika, generally known as the six systems (şaḍdarśana1).

The Samkhya is ascribed to a mythical Kapila, but the earliest works on the subject are probably now lost. The Yoga system is attributed to Patañjali and the original sūtras are called the Patanjala Yoga sutras. The general metaphysical position of these two systems with regard to soul, nature, cosmology and the final goal is almost the same, and the difference lies in this that the Yoga system acknowledges a god (Ïśvara) as distinct from Atman and lays much importance on certain mystical

7) practices (commonly known as Yoga practices) for the achieve

ment of liberation, whereas the Samkhya denies the existence of Isvara and thinks that sincere philosophic thought and culture are sufficient to produce the true conviction of the truth and thereby bring about liberation. It is probable that the system of Samkhya associated with Kapila and the Yoga system associated with Patañjali are but two divergent modifications of an original Sāmkhya school, of which we now get only references here and there. These systems therefore though generally counted as two should more properly be looked upon as two different schools of the same Samkhya system-one may be called the Kāpila Sāmkhya and the other Pātañjala Sāṇkhya.

The Purva Mimāmsā (from the root man to think-rational conclusions) cannot properly be spoken of as a system of philosophy. It is a systematized code of principles in accordance with which the Vedic texts are to be interpreted for purposes of sacrifices.

1 The word "darśana" in the sense of true philosophic knowledge has its earliest use in the Vaiseṣika sūtras of Kaņāda (IX. ii. 13) which I consider as pre-Buddhistic. The Buddhist piṭakas (400 B.C.) called the heretical opinions “diṭṭhi” (Sanskrit—dṛṣti from the same root dṛś from which darśana is formed). Haribhadra (fifth century A.D.) uses the word Darśana in the sense of systems of philosophy (sarvadarśanavācyo' rthah-Saddarśanasamuccaya 1.). Ratnakīrtti (end of the tenth century A.D.) uses the word also in the same sense (" Yadi nāma darśane darśane nānāprakāram sattvalakṣaṇam uktamasti.” Kṣaṇabhangasiddhi in Six Buddhist Nyāya tracts, p. 20). Mādhava (1331 A.D.) calls his Compendium of all systems of philosophy, Sarvadarśanasamıgraha. The word "mata” (opinion or view) was also freely used in quoting the views of other systems. But there is no word to denote 'philosophers' in the technical sense. The Buddhists used to call those who held heretical views "tairthika." The words "siddha," “jñānin,” etc. do not denote philosophers in the modern sense, they are used rather in the sense of "seers" or "perfects."

The Vedic texts were used as mantras (incantations) for sacrifices, and people often disputed as to the relation of words in a sentence or their mutual relative importance with reference to the general drift of the sentence. There were also differences of view with regard to the meaning of a sentence, the use to which it may be applied as a mantra, its relative importance or the exact nature of its connection with other similar sentences in a complex Vedic context. The Mīmāmsā formulated some principles according to which one could arrive at rational and uniform solutions for all these difficulties. Preliminary to these its main objects, it indulges in speculations with regard to the external world, soul, perception, inference, the validity of the Vedas, or the like, for in order that a man might perform sacrifices with mantras, a definite order of the universe and its relation to man or the position and nature of the mantras of the Veda must be demonstrated and established. Though its interest in such abstract speculations is but secondary yet it briefly discusses these in order to prepare a rational ground for its doctrine of the mantras and their practical utility for man. It is only so far as there are these preliminary discussions in the Mīmāmsā that it may be called a system of philosophy. Its principles and maxims for the interpretation of the import of words and sentences have a legal value even to this day. The sutras of Mīmāmsā are attributed to Jaimini, and Śabara wrote a bhāṣya upon it. The two great names in the history of Mīmāmsā literature after Jaimini and Śabara are Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and his pupil Prabhākara, who criticized the opinions of his master so much, that the master used to call him guru (master) in sarcasm, and to this day his opinions pass as guru-mata, whereas the views of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa pass as bhaṭṭa-mata1. It may not be out of place to mention here that Hindu Law (smṛti) accepts without any reservation the maxims and principles settled and formulated by the Mimāmsā.

1 There is a story that Kumārila could not understand the meaning of a Sanskrit sentence "Atra tunoktam tatrāpinoktam iti paunaruktam" (hence spoken twice). Tunoktam phonetically admits of two combinations, tu noktam (but not said) and tunā uktam (said by the particle tu) and tatrāpi noktam as tatra api na uktam (not said also there) and tatra apinā uktam (said there by the particle api). Under the first interpretation the sentence would mean, "Not spoken here, not spoken there, it is thus spoken twice." This puzzled Kumārila, when Prabhākara taking the second meaning pointed out to him that the meaning was "here it is indicated by tu and there by api, and so it is indicated twice." Kumārila was so pleased that he called his pupil "Guru" (master) at this.

3)

The Vedanta sūtras, also called Uttara Mīmāmsā, written by Bādarāyaṇa, otherwise known as the Brahma-sutras, form the original authoritative work of Vedānta. The word Vedānta means "end of the Veda," i.e. the Upanisads, and the Vedānta sūtras are so called as they are but a summarized statement of the general views of the Upaniṣads. This work is divided into four books or adhyāyas and each adhyāya is divided into four pādas or chapters. The first four sutras of the work commonly known as Catuḥsūtri are (1) How to ask about Brahman, (2) From whom proceed birth and decay, (3) This is because from him the Vedas have come forth, (4) This is shown by the harmonious testimony of the Upanisads. The whole of the first chapter of the second book is devoted to justifying the position of the Vedanta against the attacks of the rival schools. The second chapter of the second book is busy in dealing blows at rival systems. All the other parts of the book are devoted to settling the disputed interpretations of a number of individual Upanisad texts. The really philosophical portion of the work is thus limited to the first four sūtras and the first and second chapters of the second book. The other portions are like commentaries to the Upaniṣads, which however contain many theological views of the system. The first commentary of the Brahmasūtra was probably written by Baudhāyana, which however is not available now. The earliest commentary that is now found is that of the great Sankara. His interpretations of the Brahma-sūtras together with all the commentaries and other works that follow his views are popularly known as Vedānta philosophy, though this philosophy ought more properly to be called Viśuddhādvaitavāda school of Vedānta philosophy (i.e. the Vedanta philosophy of the school of absolute monism). Variant forms of dualistic philosophy as represented by the Vaiṣṇavas, Šaivas, Rāmāyatas, etc., also claim to express the original purport of the Brahma sūtras. We thus find that apostles of dualistic creeds such as Rāmānuja, Vallabha, Madhva, Śrīkaṇṭha, Baladeva, etc., have written independent commentaries on the Brahma-sūtra to show that the philosophy as elaborated by themselves is the view of the Upanisads and as summarized in the Brahma-sutras. These differed largely and often vehemently attacked Śankara's interpretations of the same sūtras. These systems as expounded by them also pass by the name of Vedānta as these are also claimed to be the real interpretations intended by the Vedanta (Upaniṣads)

and the Vedanta sutras. Of these the system of Rāmānuja has great philosophical importance.

The Nyaya sutras attributed to Gautama, called also Akṣapāda, and the Vaiseṣika sūtras attributed to Kaṇāda, called also Ulūka, represent the same system for all practical purposes. They are in later times considered to differ only in a few points of minor importance. So far as the sutras are concerned the Nyaya sutras lay particular stress on the cultivation of logic as an art, while the Vaiseṣika sutras deal mostly with metaphysics and physics. In addition to these six systems, the Tantras had also philosophies of their own, which however may generally be looked upon largely as modifications of the Samkhya and Vedānta systems, though their own contributions are also noteworthy.

Some fundamental Points of Agreement.

1. The Karma Theory.

It is, however, remarkable that with the exception of the Cārvāka materialists all the other systems agree on some fundamental points of importance. The systems of philosophy in India were not stirred up merely by the speculative demands of the human mind which has a natural inclination for indulging in abstract thought, but by a deep craving after the realization of the religious purpose of life. It is surprising to note that the postulates, aims and conditions for such a realization were found to be identical in all the conflicting systems. Whatever may be their differences of opinion in other matters, so far as the general postulates for the realization of the transcendent state, the summum bonum of life, were concerned, all the systems were practically in thorough agreement. It may be worth while to note some of them at this stage.

First, the theory of Karma and rebirth. All the Indian systems agree in believing that whatever action is done by an individual leaves behind it some sort of potency which has the power to ordain for him joy or sorrow in the future according as it is good or bad. When the fruits of the actions are such that they cannot be enjoyed in the present life or in a human life, the individual has to take another birth as a man or any other being in order to suffer them.

The Vedic belief that the mantras uttered in the correct accent at the sacrifices with the proper observance of all ritualistic